‘POLITICALLY ITS OK TO HATE THE WHITE MAN’
by Alvaro AlvillarIn March of 2007, two police officers in Atlanta, Georgia filed a hostile work environment complaint against a work of art that went up in Atlanta’s City Hall East where, among other things, the city police headquarters and Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs are located. Atlanta’s chapter of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers called for the immediate removal of the art. The artist was called a “racist” and the art a work of “hate.”
The people who spread the word “racist” were those in the media eager for headline grabbing attention, but the only reason it became a city-wide controversy was due to the fact the art show took place in a public building, not in a gallery. For this reason, local conservative radio also added fuel to the controversy.
I should add that no taxpayer money funded any of this. All of the participating artists installed their own work, took it down themselves, removed it when the show ended and no work of art was bought by the city.
I should also add that I am the artist in question, and it doesn’t get more SNL comedy sketch than this.
Imagine two police officers filing a “hostile work environment” complaint because they had to walk past a work of art that hung, for a brief period, in the building where their station is. Forget about guns, knives and other weapons, or the physical, mental and verbal abuse they encounter daily…. No, obviously, nothing could be worse than a work of art that pointed fingers at no one in particular. You can see for yourself below:
“FfOoRrMhUaLtAe”
–
“FfOoRrMhUaLtAe” [altered to make out letters]
The piece is called “FfOoRrMhUaLtAe,” (formula for hate) which also served as a clue for deciphering it. In capital letters, the first sentence reads: “POLITICALLY ITS OK TO HATE THE WHITE MAN,” which, without punctuation, can be interpreted as a statement of fact, a question or as a provocation — the latter being what the officers claimed it to be in their complaint.
The fact is I intended it to be what it is — a statement of fact. Ironically, while I was painting the piece, the Duke Lacrosse case was coming to an end after making headlines for a year and proved my work’s point when prosecutor Mike Nifong was reelected after promising to prosecute those “privileged” young white boys for a crime, it turns out, they did not commit.
–
“FfOoRrMhUaLtAe” [altered to make out letters]
“Formula for Hate’s” second sentence, in small case letters reads: “is it ok for me to hate if ive been a victim” [see enhanced photo above], also sans punctuation. The purpose of this sentence was for a little introspection on the part of the viewers, regardless of the kind of victimization they may have experienced in their own lives.
The numbers on the piece began with 76, for the year 1976, our Bicentennial — to 07, for 2007, the year the piece was made. The last print ended with my initials, AA, which served as the signature.
It went up and was on view a week before the official opening night. There was a little of the expected rumbling, but it would take a few days before all hell broke loose. When it did, for the next two weeks my work and I were in every local paper, on every local news channel and on a couple of local radio talk shows. I even heard from Fox News, but think my hesitation about going on live television blew that. Apparently, the big boys don’t like it when you hesitate, which was probably for the best, they would have eaten me alive. I was also all over conservative and liberal blogs. Apparently, I was an equal opportunity offender.
As I see it, the real story was the one I witnessed as an artist who created a piece that got an awful lot of publicity in a city the size of and with the history and make-up of Atlanta. The kind of scrutiny someone was quoted in the press saying was not fit for “the city too busy to hate.”
If only that were true. I can tell you that when people first started to make out the sentences on my piece, not knowing I was the artist, I overheard things. First, there were sounds about how the artist “must be black,” and then some would notice my signature and remark about my being an, “angry young Latino,” or something. The blogs were even more extreme.
While this was going on, something was happening behind the scenes. I was embraced by some in the media who thought the work was a provocation, but the more they called and the more questions they asked, the more it became clear to them that I was not the artist they wanted to write about.
They wanted to write about my reaction to a country that wasn’t living up to its promise of diversity and how this fueled my work. To some in the press the story was to be about a disenfranchised minority artist justified in producing work called “racist” and “hate art” by the status-quo white majority.
The press my work received proved “POLITICALLY ITS OK TO HATE THE WHITE MAN” true. Through the use of the hatred and victimization that is still alive in this country, politicians and race baiting profiteers in the media constantly manipulate the system and the people through fear and intimidation for their own gain.
Finally, all the uproar came to a head when, at the urging of Atlanta’s Mayor Shirley Franklin, I was asked to head a public forum and discussion panel to explain my work. The hope was that it would calm down the tension my art was creating in the city.
The most interesting observation I made at the forum was what happened when people showed up. With the exception of Timothy Tew of Tew Galleries, the only person I asked to be on the panel (he shows my wife’s work) and Mr. Larry Walker, a well known artist/educator, not a single panelist came up to me before the forum began or after it was over. The curator of The Contemporary and other art notables, all of them familiar with me before that day, made a point of ignoring me.
When it was time for the forum, we all took our seats and were introduced by the host, who said a few words about why we were gathered there. Because I had asked permission to read a statement before the forum officially began, she then asked me to read it. Here’s the opening paragraph:
I love my country! The United States of America, in my opinion, is the greatest country on earth. It is the most diverse place in the world and open to anyone willing to obey its laws. It is the most generous. When there is need anywhere in the world, the citizens of this country personally reach deep into their own pockets, and more, to provide anything that is asked of them. No questions asked and nothing expected in return. It is a place of limitless opportunities. It is still the place where you can reach for the stars. Within reason, anything is possible. It is a place where you’re given a second chance, again and again. If you’ve fallen, and you’re willing to look deep inside and make the necessary changes, this is the place where a second chance is only the beginning of the gifts offered you. I could go on and on about our qualities, but there is not enough time here for that now….
I then spoke a little about personal responsibility and how we must all learn to live together.
The purpose of this statement was not for the sake of educating people about art or the meaning of “Formula for Hate.” The purpose was to introduce me, the artist, to those gathered, to those who had followed the coverage and would watch the coverage of the forum. I wanted people to know who this artist was — who the mainstream media had labeled a racist and promoter of hate. I wanted to let them know that what they had been told was a lie and at best a tried and true example of promotion by the media for the pure sale of time and space. My goal was not to interpret the art or change anyone’s interpretation of it. The piece speaks for itself and I was there to speak for myself.
After I spoke, the most visible example of a possible understanding came from the officer who spoke after I did and who was there to represent the officers who had brought the complaint. Where I thought he might open his statement with an attack on me and my art, he instead mentioned how he had no personal grievance with me or the work. His grievance had to do with public funded art in a public building. When he mentioned he had no problem with me, he looked at me. It was one of those moments where two people share a, “I get it, and I’m cool with you” understanding. That was a relief.
After he was done speaking, we took questions. The first was from a woman who offered a backhanded compliment of my statement. She said, “You’d make a good politician.” This was followed by a question about taxpayer funding of controversial art, but after that the forum took its own course away from art and towards unrelated issues.
Even if it didn’t translate into work, sales or representation, what the forum did for me was take away the fears I’d lived with. Although I was accused of having set out to get attention, beyond the normal attention an artist wants, that just wasn’t the case. I wasn’t at all prepared to be called a racist self-promoter, but at least the forum seemed to have cleared that misperception up. It was also a huge learning experience and good for me. You can’t pay for that kind of experience or the knowledge that comes with it.
I also learned that as much as some in the media pretended to be on my side, their interest had nothing to do with enlightening others about what the piece meant or who I was. This was a story they sought to promote for their own reasons and when it became clear that I and what “Formula for Hate” stood for wasn’t what they had thought or “hoped” for, the painting, the artist and the story itself, ceased to exist.
The local television news and papers covered the forum, but not a single word of my statement was ever mentioned, not once. The interviews and the phone calls died that day too. As a matter of fact, the last media call I received was just before the forum from an editorial writer who had wanted to befriend me and introduce me around to his friends and connections. After the forum, I never heard from him again.
Such is celebrity.
I can’t say for sure, because it would be pure speculation on my part, but knowing the Atlanta art community and what is currently in vogue, I believe that had “Formula for Hate” been what people thought it was and what the media was promoting it to be, I might have been embraced and invited to be a part of the local art scene.
Later, inspired by the controversy over my piece, there was another panel held in Atlanta to discuss the role and impact art can have on a community.
I wasn’t invited.
We artists need gallery representation to sell our work, and the right gallery can mean the difference between failure, barely making a living, and thriving. Finding the right gallery is the goal and I don’t know of any galleries that sell contemporary art with a conservative leaning message. So, we’re stuck having to be our own gallery, so to speak, and the time, money, packaging, delivery and everything else it takes to promote ourselves is time taken away from painting — and without paintings you have nothing to promote. Under normal circumstances — meaning, had I been a left-leaning, self loathing, anti-American, anti-conservative artist — the opportunities that could have come from the media coverage of “Formula for Hate” would have been the best case scenario for any artist, represented or not.
I’m sorry to say that was not the case and it would have made a huge difference in our lives when we needed it most. I believe in what I’m doing and while my wife and I do what we must in order to provide for our two kids, I will continue to paint, when I can. Life is life and I’m not complaining, $&#% happens and sometimes it doesn’t. We live in the United States where anything is possible and we’re better off than most.
If you’re an American and all you do is complain about your life not being fair, you haven’t a clue about what’s going on in the rest of the world.
You can see Alvaro’s portfolio here.







Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
465 Comments
No, it is not OK for that art work to hang in a public building. If it asked if it is OK to hate black people, the artists would be blacklisted for good.
I suppose the next question for us white folks would be, "Is it OK to hate black people who hate white people?"
The answer in this PC environment is, of course, "No." We're held to a completely different standard while minorities are held to no racial standard at all – witness the pass BHO got after 20 years of implicitly endorsing "Reverend" Wright's bile.
Extraordinarily rich, considering the fact that, 33.3% of Atlanta police officers have criminal records.
This situation is not unique to Atlanta, of course, since with the laws the way they are these days, it's increasingly difficult to get honorable people to do the job. Blame lawyers: They make the law, they judge the law, they prosecute the law, and they defend us from the law. As a result of this monopoly (Which ought to be illegal. LOL!), the law is designed now to do little else than to enrich lawyers and empower the police.
This is why I'm not a member of any political party: Their lawyers are not any better than our lawyers… er… and/or vice versa.
This is a sad commentary on life isn't it? These people can float blithly past and say whatever they want, take 0 responsibility for themselves and yet here we are watching them use the same tactics that were used in Russia, East Germany, China, Cuba and now Venezuala. This is leftwing fascism period. There are plenty of pieces of art I don't like but will you see me writing up a formal complaint? No. I just won't go see it. Notice how easy that is.
Art is an expression of emotion and as such is meant to provoke it as well. Such provocation can change your perception of the world, if it is good art. According to his article, it appears that the person most enlightened as a result of this work was Mr. Alvillar himself. Ironically, his perception of the world was changed as a result of his own art, and the reactions it provoked. It was surely painful for him, but illuminating as well, as good art often is.
I have a great deal of love in my heart for Mr. Alvillar after reading this article. It isn't easy to have the scales fall from your eyes, but he faced it with courage and maturity, and accepted the responsibility for the reactions his art provoked, even though many of those reactions weren't what he intended.
I will go out of my way to look for his art now. I hope you find a gallery, Mr. Alvillar, that prioritizes Art before Politics. And many patrons with deep pockets!
Hitler was an "artist" too. Just sayin.
Hitler also ate breakfast. Does that make IT evil, too? (just replyin')
I think it's a great piece, sir, and your statement should have been quoted far and wide. Interesting how certain ideas are so utterly alien to the MSM. I don't know if I'm saddened more by their whitewashing of your love of America, or of the hypocrisy of the various artistes and pretentious hangers-on – apparently, "irreverence" and "challenging preconceptions" and all that rot is only an essential of art that they agree with.
I wasn't inferring evil intent on the "artist" in question. Living in a rural area where a bunch of "artists" have decided to locate, I have learned one thing. Just because you call yourself an artist, doesn't make you an artist.
By the way, do you have a link to support the breakfast thing?
Great stuff – I hope you find a gallery worthy of your work. If you don't, maybe do it right and open your own.
I like puzzles and mysteries. This artwork is fascinating and composed beautifully. The only thing wrong with it is that our dominant culture despises thoughtful, intelligent art. If you bring real beauty back into public art, the ongoing destruction of our culture will be halted. And the leftists can't have that.
If the message isn't decidedly liberal then the left isn't into art. They think art can only be left-leaning. It sickens me.
That's funny! (No, I have no link. But I have anecdotal evidence. In the Frau Braun diaries, page 430, she says, "This morning when 'Dolfie was eating his Kellogg's Corn Flakes we had a huge fight over how much sugar he was spooning over it.")
WOW! The first response is that one…did you miss the part that says it is not a question but a statement of fact?
Yours happened to be the most "used" comment by those who don't get it. Did you read the post? It is clearly expedient to use class and race for political purposes and guess who is the easiest target today? Get a grip and stop arguing "what if" and be in the moment or just keep moving the race baiters agenda forward. You're helping their cause! Unless you happen to be one of those "seminar callers"?
Just saying what? I think you have Alvillar all wrong. When he was saying "Politically it's OK to hate the white man" he wasn't expressing his point of view, but a stating a fact. He said so himself in the article.
I believe we here (and I include Alvillar) all find this as a world view repugnant, but I don't think it makes it an untrue statement: Today, especially among the media chinstrokers, the elite salon thinkers, and the Hollywood ditz-eratti, politically it IS indeed OK to hate the white man.
Thanks Smitty! Someone needed to break it down for the reactionaries!!
Also, Thank you Alvillar–I love your work and I love hearing you on Boortz!!
Gee, who would have thought that cops would be so sensitive that they'd get offended by art. Pretty lame IMO.
Yea but that would be using too much common sense Lola. Where's the publicity in that?
Freedom, I know Boortz talked about it and myself at the time and not in a good way, but I have never been on Boortz's show nor have I called in…do you know something I don't? Is there someone out there calling in who says they're me? Just curious.
No city government in the United States should promote a piece of "art" that violates the U.S. Flag Code.
Please read in the U.S. Code at Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8, (g): The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
If an "art gallery" wants to display it, that's another problem, but the city is violating its own charter in the most egregious manner.
Smitty, I'm not sure I agree with the following: "It isn't easy to have the scales fall from your eyes, but he faced it with courage and maturity, and accepted the responsibility for the reactions his art provoked, even though many of those reactions weren't what he intended."
Why is it his responsibility about the reactions? Mr. Alvillar made a piece of art to express himself and his beliefs (and hopefully get others thinking about the subject), but i don't get why you're saying he's responsible for the 'angered' crowd's actual response? If you had made it more along the lines of "expecting" various reactions… Okay, I could see that as a point of topic.
Not arguing against you, I'm just not sure where the response became Mr. Alvillar's responsibility?
Alvaro, I like the message.
As for the flag code, since when do people care? Modifying the Flag is protected free speech these days.
What I got out of this is that the community is more than willing to embrace art that appears, at first, to make an anti-white statement. (I'm guessing they took the statement "It's okay to hate the white man" as permission). But when the statement the artist is making is ironic and showing support for an unfairly maligned group–oops! It's no longer inflammatory enough to be interesting. How dare the white man stand up for himself. He's supposed to continue to lie down and be the affirmative action whipping boy. At least that's how I read the community reaction.
If he had burned the flag, or made it out of cattle dung, they never would have dared to take it down for fear of suppressing his right to free speech.
If he had burned the flag, or made it out of cattle dung, they never would have dared to take it down for fear of suppressing his right to free speech.
you shouldn't hate anything, it kills you from the inside.
[I signed up for an official account and Smitty was taken, so now I'm Fargin_Bastage. Sorry 'bout that, everyone, and to the original Smitty]…Thanks for asking, Mark. What I meant is that because he saw that the reaction to his work was negative, though unintended (to be honest it seems quite naive of Alvillar not to have expected it), he didn't just blow it off and style himself a "poor, misunderstood artist / victim". He held a forum at the mayor's request to stand up, explain his work and help to "calm the tension [his] art was causing in [Atlanta]". Artist should indeed take responsibility for their art, unintended consequences notwithstanding. You can't be responsible for how some one individual reacts to something of yours, but art intentionally pushes buttons. Only Alvillar could host the forum to explain his work and try calming people down.
Continuing, this goes for artist in other media too, like music and film. If you sing about controversial subjects, make a politically charged movie, or tell an off-color joke at a comedy club, expect to take heat from all sides and get questioned about it. And if you paint a painting that could potentially provoke racial tensions, stand and explain yourself. Isn't this what Big Hollywood should be about? Holding artist responsible for their art? Hope this explains my thoughts better, Mark!
[I signed up officially and Smitty was taken, so now I'm Fargin_Bastage.] Mark, Alvillar could have worn the mantle of "poor misunderstood artist / victim", but instead hosted a forum at the mayor's request to "calm the tension [his] art was causing in the city". He accepted the responsibility for his art.
This should be the standard for artist in other media too. If you sing about controversial subjects, make a politically charged movie, or tell an off-color joke at a comedy club, expect to take heat from all sides and get questioned about it. And if you paint a painting that could potentially provoke racial tensions, stand and explain yourself.
Isn't this what Big Hollywood should be about? Holding artist responsible for their art? Hope this explains my thoughts better, Mark!
I think I'll place a picture of Obama into a glass jar and then pee into it. I think I'll call it "Piss Obama." Look everybody, I'm an artist! Do you think the art community will embrace me? I’ll be the toast of the town for my wit. Hmm, or maybe I should use a picture of George W. Bush…Nah, it would get the same reaction.
Keep up the good fight Alvaro. Keep exposing the hypocrisy of the left and those phony followers and liberal “conformist” posing as arteests (sic).
You have a good point. I've never liked artists who presume that there is no relation between their actual work and the public's reactions to it: "If you don't like it, it's your problem." Well, if you hadn't created it, there wouldn't be anything here to like or dislike in the first place. The reaction to art is created de facto by the work itself and therefore by the artist.
Alvaro differs from most postmodern artists in a very important way — when he says he wants to make people think, he means it. When Damien Hirst or Tracey Emin or Andres (Piss Christ) Serrano says that, what they mean is that they want to shock, horrify, and infuriate; "making people think" is just a convenient excuse.
I personally find it somewhat disingenous to claim "..The fact is I intended it to be what it is — a statement of fact…" when you are making a piece of art as 'affect'. The wording may be open-ended enough to lend itself to many interpretations, but to disavow the offense that it might render when a particular person percieves it as an anti-whte sentiment doesn't hold much water.
In much the same way that a cartoon of a dead chimp captioned about the new Federal Tax policy invoked in some black people a connection with subliminal racism, did you really expect everyone to take for granted that you meant irony in your statement of fact?
Your piece of art is what it is, and that is fine. The interpretation of art is what it is. The ethics of political art in public spaces stabs me in my libertarian heart, but is probably unavoidable if we are going to have a common society.
http://www.alistz.net
iT DOES SEEM TO BE REWARDED. WHAT'S WORSE IS THE VERY LARGE TREND BY HOLLYWOOD TO VIIIANIZE ANGLO CHRISTIANS IN TV PROGRAMMING! THE MEDIA CERTAINLY HAS AN AGENDA, BUT THE 'DIVIDE AND CONQUER' COURSE OF THOSE WHO CONTROL MOST MEDIA HAS NOT BEEN RECONGNIZED BY ENOUGH PEOPLE YET. SO MANY FRONTS ARE UNDER ATTACK FROM WITH-IN.
Just imagine the outrage if a Christmas Tree or, gasp, a copy of the Ten Commandments was placed in the same spot in that public building.
Sadly it isn't a surprise at all to see this in Atlanta, or for that matter Phlly, Washington DC, Detroit, or any other of our Cities whose leadership courts constituencies that believe this type of tripe.
We all hate something. Think about it for at least a minute.
When all else fails, bring up Hitler. That is the typical response of an angry Liberal who has nothing intelligent to add to the conversation. You do realize Hitler was a Socialist, just like a certain President we're now stuck with?
Beware of the Thought Police. Be Aware.
You are absolutely right Dan. I know Alvaro personally, and can't describe how amazing his work is in person. Unfortunately, it takes a huge amount of overhead and investment to open a gallery, and they often don't make money for several years. It is going to take support from the conservative community to make people like Alvaro, and myself, successful as artists. We cannot do it alone. Also, as Alvaro pointed out, all of the business takes away from the painting. I can say with confidence, neither one of us would ever accept government handouts to fund our art or build a business. Some say we're cutting our own throats. I say we have integrity. It will be for the Conservative community to decide our fate. I hope they can step up to the challenge. The future of our country's culture is as much at stake as that of the few artists trying to change the status quo. I look forward to the day when we can stop complaining about how terrible art is, and hold our heads up proudly, that we have a culture worth sharing with the rest of the world.
Thanks for your reply Bonnie. That is the main hurdle Conservative artists face. We cannot get representation from the Liberal art community, because they resent us. If we're going to be Conservative, the least we can do is paint something pretty and keep our mouths shut. Our minds are not welcome. The second major hurdle, and possibly the hardest to overcome, is the lack of interest in the Conservative community. They don't know we're here, and they can't conceive of such a thing as an artist who shares their views. Many jump to conclusions, as in the case of Alvaro's experience, and assume he's attacking them. They get on a mission to destroy us for our 'offenses', with the irony being that they would agree if they took a minute to actually look at the work. Then there are all the people who complain about the art community and culture of our country being Liberal, and do nothing to make any changes. You can't expect people who hate you, to express your views through their work. Conservatives are going to have to step up and support us, or we can not succeed. My hat is of to Big Hollywood for giving Alvaro a venue to spread understanding of his work. Now we need people to step up and buy the art as well. Like any other business, it takes money to keep it going. Paints and canvas aren't free, and Alvaro and I both have children to feed. Thanks to all who give us the support we need. If you can't afford art, spread the word. Exposure is just as helpful as money. We can't do this without your help.
For clarification, I have to point out the fact that these are paintings of flags, not actual flags. I'm pretty sure the Code doesn't cover works of art that look like flags. If you would like to know more about other artists who painted flags, look up Jasper Johns. I'm pretty sure he was an influence in Alvaro's style. I can't imagine you have a problem with people painting an image of the flag?
Maybe we have to start referring to Christmas trees and Nativity scenes as "art" so we can display them.
Very funny! Being a fellow artist, and having formal art training, I am familiar with the work you are alluding to. I love it.
There certainly is a level of irony in the art community that is absurd to me. They all try so hard to be controversial and avante guarde, but when they're all painting the same petty crap it just makes them the evil majority. In their attempts to be offensive, they have become boring. I applaud you on the concept of "Piss Obama", it is the first truly creative thing I have heard from an artist in a while.
I wish you luck in your art. I'd love to see your work.
Not unless you are having the Jeff Dahmer Special at Denny's
I'm going to staple a picture of Obama saying "I won" onto a package of Oscar Meyer Hot Dogs and call it, "Every body LOVES a WEENER!"
I am not prejudiced! I hate EVEYBODY….separately but equally, of course.
I don't think we ever want to lower them to the level of "art". Some self named artist would then feel the urge to submerge them in urine or splatter them with feces and demand ACLU protection for their first amendment rigjts to subject us to their vision.
Here in Chicago in the 80s, someone painted a picture of Mayor Harold Washington in a dress. It so inflamed the black community that a group of their leaders led a protest that went where the picture was hung to, "Snatch it down." Eventually it was removed and the situation calmed down, but it was a great lesson that art is one of the most PC areas in our society. You can show photos of nude boys, insult Christianity, or vilify white males, but if you pose a really tough question (about race, sexuality, or Islam), you can bet some group will be aggrieved and will take it out on the artist or the event's sponsor.
Art IS meant to challenge…..White, Conservative Christians. Everyone else evidently needs to be protected from it.
I should have thought of that. Can you imagine how they would desecrate the Nativity? I shudder to think.
The most offensive thing is that someone thought this was art to begin with.
Serrano says that, what they mean is that they want to shock, horrify, and infuriate; "making people think" is just a convenient excuse.
That's where I was leading (wasn't sure if it was understood)… there's a difference between going out of the way to infuriate (aka, christ in a urine jar), and going out to make people actually 'think and pontificate (is that the word I'm looking for? Heck if I know right now.. stupid finance stuff)' (“FfOoRrMhUaLtAe”). That's why I think the difference between being responsible for a reaction and expecting a reaction were different key phrases.
ERIC HOLDER THINKS WE ARE COWARDS BECAUSE WE WON'T DISCUSS RACE OPENLY. CLEARLY THE POLICEMEN ARE GOING TO RUN AFOUL OF THE US ATTY GENL. MAYBE THEY SHOULD JUST STFU.
Pretty good reading of it!
some of what the second part of the piece was about!
He didn't do this to a flag, he included images of the flag in the art. Important distinction.
Exactly!
it's clear…the fact is, I (the artist) intended it to be what it is!
everyone brings their opinion to a work of art long before they
set eyes on it and I took that into account when I created it.
no one said it can't be read any other way!
"Art" is in the eye of the beholder. In whose eyes are you and artist TugBoat?? I'm tired of all this sappy, liberal cliche'd art and movie themes. Usually anti-capatilism, anti-corporate, anti-christian, anti-Republican, anti-white, etc. Nice work Alvaro, your statement of fact is indeed true. It is politically OK to hate whitey, not to say that blacks don't have legitimate grievances of their own as well but that doesn't change the truth of Alvaro's work.
Read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Dispossessed-Majority-Wilmo...
It was written over 30 years ago. The author predicted the rise of an "Obama" figure way back then. More importantly he cites historical precedents and how we can find our way agin. Along with "Rules For Radicals" I feel this book is the best explanation for what is going on today in America. Bravo for Alvaro and other artists who have the courage to speak the truth.
I applaud your creativity!
Well then, what is the point of this whole column? More self-promotion on your part? You create a work that anyone can interpret anyway they want, you realize that, and you realize it's message is self-consciously politically controrversial and then you seemed taken aback that it created controversy?
This is why I gave up singing and dancing in black face. People didn't get me.
http://www.alistz.net
Great piece and interesting lesson in the human condition. Everyone took it to mean what they thought it should mean depending on the ethnicity of the artist. So the conversation ended once it no longer worked to portray their original assertion.
There are some cowards out there who don't want to discuss the issue of racism, but it's doesn't fall on the shoulders of white men. This would seem to be the perfect example of that. Did the Attorney General come down to talk about this topic with you?
I'm not an art critic, nor am I an artist. My taste in art (that I enjoy) is limited to pretty much landscapes, portraits, pretty much anything that its easy to determine what i'm looking at that isn't trying to push a message. I'm much more of a music person (give me one of Chopin's Nocturne's or Vivaldi's Four Seasons)
that being said, I do understand wanting people to think, to question. I understand that my art tastes are not those of everyone. I see your piece, Alvaro, and I understand the message you're trying to convey. You convey it well. I may not understand art, but I understand that you created something from your heart to convey the message that hehateme pointed out (and that its Politically okay to hate the white man). I also believe that we need more artists like you, who are trying to create art that is held to a higher standard then just shocking people. I can totally support your efforts. I hope you find a gallery that will help you get your work out there and give you more time to create, and if you ever have a showing in Ohio, I'd be glad to go and support it.
"seemed taken aback" by two plus weeks of multi-media coverage in a city the size of Atlanta, which is a little more then the conversation at the "gallery" among the viewers that I did count on, got it?
and I'll answer your questions when you learn to answer questions yourself!
maybe you should try comedy writing, obviously you can't sing and dance, but I bet you sure could run!
Thank you very much,
Alvaro
That's funny! Who knew breakfast could be evil?
I'm not sure what question was asked of me that you seem to think I didn't answer.
But..shock shock…City Hall East isn't an art gallery, so no I don't get it. If your art had been at a gallery most likely there would have been no major controvery. Your political art was hung in a public building.
shuffle…shuffle…"Ma-mmy…how I love ya'….how I love ya'…dear darlin' Mammy…."
http://www.alistz.net
Have you heard about the "Octo-mom" Breakfast? It's 14 eggs, no sausage and the guy next you buys the meal!
I'm no apologist for the legal profession. But they're not all bad. I have immense respect for those I have worked with at the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and the Alliance Defense Fund. Since leaving the legal profession, I've watched it deteriorate into mostly left-wing absolutism. But there are still a few legal voices crying in the wilderness.
DFTT
False.
I don't hate anyone, hate is too strong of an emotion to waste on people I don't get along with. I would have to care more than I do.
And, I love the art piece, too bad it won't get the respect it deserves in the art world.
Both of you have good points here:
1) Yep Alvaro, the media is VERY agenda driven and, for the most part, they love enforcing the "angry minority" stereotype — it makes for a better narrative.
2) I also commend him for getting a public forum together and standing up publicly as the man behind the art. It's a nice contrast to the all the cowards involved in that recent 17-hour "Che" movie, who tried to convince us that WE the unwashed masses misunderstood the *symbolism* of Che the revolutionary and concentrated too much on the real Che – a murderous bastard.
Alvaro,
Please do not be discouraged by the first comment. The first comment is usually by someone from over at Huffpo trolling in to post something negative to try to bring everyone down on the blog. This guy "appears" to be conservative but they tend to play that game as well. The 'handle' chosen makes me suspicious. It can be construed as a negative on Bush. Don't worry we are used to it.
As for myself I can "understand" someone making a fuss over the message but not all the hoopla. I mean really in the art world it is avant garde to drop cow dung on the Virgin Mary but this rates the 21st century version of the Spanish Inquisition. Lord I'd rather have the "comfy" chair. LOL had to get a Monty Python reference in I don't know why – - It's late.
The Obamanonic Third Way Machine is certainly on the move, isn't it.
In order to make people think you have to be able to think for yourself first. Good Point
"Hitler also ate breakfast. Does that make IT evil, too? (just replyin') "
Hey wait a minute I work in the IT field. Are you saying I should avoid eating breakfast. Now I am getting confused.
How many weight watcher points is that I wonder……. Never Mind!
Deborah,
I think you might misunderstand the law. There is a marked difference between an actual regulation Amercian flag and an image or likeness of the flag.
I donthink Alvaro has not broken any laws here.
The Left has been very successful at dividing to conquer the Right. Just look at how many conservatives spend their time attacking Christians on these boards. Ask someone why they dislike Dan Quayle and they will most likely tell you that he can't spell potato. Ask many conservatives what ails the republican party and many will blame religious fanatics. Both instances were spoon fed to the electorate by liberals and their propaganda wing… the main stream media. Over time a lot of conservatives have gobbled it up.
Quayle's opinions on the media and family values showed that politically he was ahead of the game. Both issues became hot topics during the Clinton years. Yeah but he misspelled potato!
Christians are probably the most conservative block of voters on the right side of the political spectrum but many in the republican party blame Christians for recent losses at the polls. If Christians embraced abortion, stem cell research, and prayer in public schools do you think today's left leaning moderates would suddenly start voting republican again? I doubt it. The real problem with the republican party is that it lacks conservative principles. Smaller government, lower taxes, free enterprise are not republican priorities any longer. The republicans have no brand, that's why they are losing elections. So for a cure let's alienate the Right's most conservative block of voters!!
The liberals have done a great job blaming their gains on the Christians. It has worked so nicely that they are beginning to use the same strategery (in memory of GW) on Rush Limbaugh. I'm waiting to start seeing account names appear on these boards such as ConservHatesRush, or RightwingRushHatr, or maybe AntiJesusAntiRushConserv… It's only a matter of time.
Alvaro,
I remember this from when it happened, I live right outside of ATL. I was excited when I saw your first post here, because I was always curious about this. I remember hearing Boortz mention it, but I guess because I wasn't listening carefully, thinking I already knew about it, I didn't pay close attention. I am surprised he said negative stuff about your work, as he considers himself to be a Conservative/Libertarian. I mentioned before that I really liked your work, and this is a great piece. I would love to see it in person, I think that would make the most impact, due to the size. Good Luck and God Bless!
Boy, you really are as dumb as a box of______! If you didn't care for the piece, why bother with the juvenile post? Shesh! As a native of ATL, I can tell you right now, that if I knew ahead of time this was going to take place, I would have hunted down Alvaro and volunteered myself as his PR manager, to deal with the flack. The people here in the city are some of the most closed minded in the world. They can see a grievance or racial slur in the bottom of their cereal bowl.
machinepolitick,
While I applaud you for not taking government money I think you should take some time to read Stage Rghts' Manefesto peice on the theater concerning the Utopia of an arts not funded by the government. The probelm is that if you refuse this money then you leave the competition for the funding to go to artwork holding liberal bias unchallenged. Thus there is more liberal art, conservatives are considered not to be able to do art and their conceits seem justified (to them). Why becuase by choosing the harder road there will be less of you conservative artists and less of your art as you spend your time promoting yourself.
The fact of the matter is dollars given to Alvaro go to pictures that highlight the bueaty of the American flag while dollars given to liberals go to pictures promoting Castro's Cuba or aborting Christ.
It's Catch 22.
Ironic considering that the left would say that good art causes controversy. Of course, they only say that if it is a controversy they agree with.
You could get away with it in Detroit because no one is there to care!
Good point. Ask about opinions on Osama bin Laden………….
How pretell does one create a work of art that can only be interpreted in one way?
How is this message self-consciously politically controversial?
In order for your statement to hold water I must actually believe that the individuals find the painting's message to be "racist". I don't. I think the individuals are being "dishonest" in their feelings because the message shows the irony in how ridiculous there identity politics really are.
By the way I guarantee you the officers making the complaint are not worried because they are white. I bet they are more likely elitist liberal snobs speaking for persons of color and are mad because the statement is demeaning the "Struggle".
As far as I am concerned anyone who espresses "offense" at this message that I have decided is not "offensive" is "offensive" to me and we should probably have a two week snit in the counsel chambers to discuss it. You start without me I'll be along if I can get out of work
How pretell does one create a work of art that can only be interpreted in one way?
Since I said: "You create a work that anyone can interpret anyway they want" I don't believe one can, it is Alvaro who says "The fact is I intended it to be what it is — a statement of fact". Yet he also admits that people will interpret it differently.
How is this message self-consciously politically controversial?
"Politically it is OK to Hate the White Man." Are you serious? You believe this statement is A. not political? B. Not controversial? Did you just arrive here from Planet Headupmyass?
"In order for your statement to hold water I must actually believe.."
This is logically incorrect. My statement holds water based on it accurately expressing my opinion, not upon your beliefs." Whether your agree with my opinion is up to you.
"anyone who espresses "offense" at this message that I have decided is not "offensive" is "offensive" to me
You've just proven yourself to be A. The Problem or B. from Planet Headupyourass.
Hmmmpf. My first reaction to the art was exactly what it seems the artist intended. Statement of fact, indeed.
You are right Individualist, and the temptation is certainly there to take a piece of the pie away from the Liberals. My husband does pay taxes after all, as did I before I stayed home to have our son. I just can't rail against government funding of art, then accept that funding for my work. Your point is valid and arguably, it would be a comfort to know I was siphoning off some funds. However, I'm pretty confident from my experiences with galleries that the government isn't willing to give me money either. Have you ever noticed how bad public art is? As with everything else the government does, their criteria is based on need rather than merit.
Thank you for commenting and complementing Alvaro's work. He is a truly talented artist.
If it was posted in a private gallery no one would have heard of it or cared. Those few who saw it would have written you off as a liberal asshole. But choosing that, of all your works, to post in city hall proves that you are some kind of racist asshole, hoping to publicize yourself by stirring up racil tension.
I know a conservative when I hear one and you, liberal fascist, are no conservative!
I'm sick of you phony, lying, cowards hiding behind the comfort of anonymity that blogging provides you!!!
Geesh. Thanks for letting us know about this.
[...] be called out every single time, no matter when or where they show up! They are what my piece “Formula For Hate” was all about. Make no mistake — they are dangerous, they know what they are doing and they [...]
[...] [...]
Great Site……
[...]check this out as this contains important information about[...]…
Recent Blogroll Additions……
[...]usually posts some very interesting stuff like this. If you’re new to this site[...]……
Nice Site…
[…] … great article that everyone should read […]…
Websites worth visiting…
[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]……
WOW! check this out!…
Amazing Post, worth a read…
Recommeneded websites…
[...]Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors[...]……
Blogs you should be reading…
[...]Here is a great blog you might find Interesting that we encourage you[...]…
You must be logged in to post a comment.